MOSHOOD ABIOLAANDTHE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF JUNE 12[Being the Text of a Speech in Honor of Moshood
Abiola
(1937-1998)Organized by the Board of African Studies Association,at the Hyatt Hotel, Chicago, October 31, 1998]ByEbere Onwudiwe(1)Central State University, Wilberforce, Ohio

I have been asked to comment on Moshood Abiola's
contributions
to the future of Nigerian politics by way of his response to the
annulment
of his mandate on June 23, 1993. I will primarily address one question:
Was Abiola's courageous insistence on the mandate given to him by
Nigerian
voters a benefit or a setback to political stability and to political
development
of Nigeria as one corporate nation? I will argue that Abiola's position
ultimately benefited Nigeria's political development, although perhaps,
not as he intended.

What then are some of the unintended benefits of
Moshood
Abiola's presence in Nigerian politics? First, let me state the
obvious.
Abiola was a courageous man. I think this quality is important because
changes do not occur in countries where courage is in short supply. The
unrelenting and unprecedented domestic and international hostility
against
the Sani Abacha regime that finally led to its expiration can be traced
directly to Abiola's decision never to surrender his June 12 mandate,
at
any price. He saw himself as a custodian of a sacred mandate that was
freely
given to him by Nigerians and one which "I cannot surrender unless the
people so demand, and it is by virtue of this mandate that I say that
the
decision of the Federal Military Government to cancel the results [of
the
elections June 12, 1993] is unpatriotic and capable of causing
undue
and unnecessary confusion in the country."(2)
That he never betrayed this promise is a tribute to more than his
courage.
It also points to many other admirable qualities that are in short
supply
among our ruling elites today: consistency, perseverance, honesty,
sincerity
of purpose and bravery. Consider that many Nigerian politicians who
supported
General Sani Abacha's dictatorship are now paying glowing tributes to
Abiola,
and admitting without shame that their support was based on fear of
Abacha.

Abiola was one of too small a class of the fearless.
As
a result, he has helped to put the army on notice that the country's
patience
with military dictatorship is growing thinner and thinner. The denial
of
Abiola's right to assume office encouraged the proliferation of
pro-democracy
groups and other organizations of civil society who, despite
repression,
bravely harassed the Abacha dictatorship. I say that the pressure
against
Abacha's dictatorship was unprecedented because there has never been
such
a reaction to any military coups in the past. Indeed, the cowardly
turning
of the other cheek to coup makers by the Nigerian public is the most
dangerous
threat to the grounding of democracy in Nigeria. For a country
simultaneously
given to too much braggadocio and all manners of shakara, this
cowardly
disposition is tragically comical and is a paradox. But not everyone is
laughing. A former Nigerian head of state, General Buhari berated this
shameful national character at the eve of General Abacha's demise. In
his
own words,

"Nigeria is full of paradoxes. While individual
Nigerians
may provide the best specimen of the most strongly willed persons
around,
we nonetheless display unbelievable passiveness in the face of
injustice.
Society displays little opposition against wrong policies. Why is this?
What is the reason for this apparent docility? What has happened to the
social and political conscience of the people of this country? What has
happened to our people's sense of justice and desire for choice?"

Buhari finds the answer in the abject poverty that
saps
the attention of a majority of Nigerians, allowing them no time for the
luxury of social change. I believe, however, that there is a character
issue in addition. The inclination to reap where one does not sow can
produce
in a people the inability to die for principles. This accounts for the
preeminence of pragmatism and the diminution of strongly held beliefs
in
the political behavior of many Nigerians. This is not to knock
pragmatism
which, in proper measure, is a highly valuable ideology. It is in an
attempt
to explain the country's circumstances that Buhari justifiably decries
Nigerians' docility and their thick skin for injustice. Strongly held
beliefs
for which a good number of citizens are prepared to die are critical to
political stability and for the protection of the ideology of
democracy,
in more ways than one. Indeed, the case can be made that they are also
critical to the continued existence of Nigeria. On this all important
score,
Bashuron Moshood Abiola's exemplary courage to die for something, is a
lasting contribution to the future of one Nigeria. What he died for is
more than the chance to become the president of Nigeria. He died for
the
voice of the ordinary Nigerian voter. In this sense, his struggle and
death,
symbolically shot the first bullet for Nigeria's second struggle for
independence
and self determination from internal colonialism. Nigeria can only
truly
be one great country when this war for the right of individuals is
permanently
won.

Second, with respect to the Nigerian military, two
consequences
are clear. At no other time have Nigerians held their military in more
contempt, and according to Dr. Omo Omoruyi, at no time have the
impotence
of southerners in the Nigerian military been so exposed. These are two
sad observations. A military which has shed blood to preserve the
nation
deserves better than the bad name it has received due to Abacha's
autocracy.
But I am not at all sure that the southerners in the military should be
described as impotent simply because they chose to be loyal to their
superiors
and to obey orders as their profession demands. Moreover, there is no
proof
that all northern members of the military were in full support of the
assault
on June 12. Why did their inaction against the Abacha regime
not
equate to impotence, as well? But none of these is the point. The point
is that June 12 has brought into serious national debate the
politicization
and Northernization of Nigerian military and security forces. As we
speak,
about 80% of the officers commanding in the Nigerian military are
northerners.
It is on this singular issue that the future of one Nigeria will be
permanently
settled. Perhaps, the end of political instability in Nigeria will
finally
depend on honest implementation of a quota system of recruitment and
promotion
in the Nigerian defense forces. I believe that this is much better for
one Nigeria than the zoning of military command which many southerners
are calling in the post-Abacha era. I further believe, personally, that
restructuring Nigerian military to reflect federal character is more
important
for Nigerian unity than giving the civilian presidency to a southerner.
The view shared by many ordinary Nigerians that any civilian president
not backed by the military will stand in constant danger of being
toppled
makes very good political sense. Should the present situation in
Nigeria
lead to the nationalization (I do not say federation) of Nigerian
military
and security forces, there will be one inbuilt automatic check of
ethnic
and regionally motivated coups against civilian governments. This will
help restore to the military its nonpartisan and professional
reputation.
Is there a better legacy for Bashuron Abiola?

Third, June 12 exposed the hypocrisy of
African-American
reactions toward African dictatorships. The suppression of the human
rights
of Nigerians under Abacha's dictatorship, unlike in the case of South
Africa
under a white apartheid regime, for example, was relatively treated
with
cosmetic protests and even some measure of understanding by people like
Rev. Jesse Jackson, Minister Louis Farrakhan, Senator Mosely Braun, and
institutions like the black press and TransAfrica. June 12 is a
veritable lesson on the moral and practical bankruptcy of
pan-Africanism,
a concept on which Abiola; in my view, wasted a lot of political
capital
unwisely and unnecessarily, through his highly visible support for
reparations.

Fourth, Abiola's insistence on June 12
hardened
General Sani Abacha's instruments of repression and persecution. I
submit
that the anti-thesis of this is the increased determination of the
press
and civil society in Nigeria to fight back amidst the threat of torture
and murder. The fruits of the heroism of those men and women may be
second
only to Abiola's refusal to accommodate the annulment of his mandate
even
at the threat of his life and wealth. More than this, their collective
and exemplary heroism reveals shining qualities of leadership by which
the survival of forthcoming civilian democracy (God and Allah willing)
can be grounded: qualities like guts and patriotism, respect for
accountability,
transparency and justice. Should the agents of these values, the press
and civil society that fought Abacha's dictatorial regime so gallantly,
continue with the same intensity during the expected civilian rule,
then,
the hope for grounding civilian democracy in Nigeria will have become
more
realistic. This then is another unintended contribution of Abiola's
courage
to the future of Nigeria.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The events of June 12 also produced threats
to
the future of the country. And Abiola's intransigence has a lot to do
with
it. In fact, it has been pointed out in a recent book on political
history
of independent Nigeria by Professor Eghosa Osaghae that part of the
dynamics
of the June 12 crisis can be blamed on Abiola's political
history
and poor responses. He points out in the Crippled Giant, that
Abiola's
penchant for not dealing with his opponents, preferring instead to deal
only with the faction of the party that agreed with him, mainly those
from
the Western and Borno axis of the party, did not improve his democratic
credentials and may, in fact, have caused him the consolidated support
of his Social Democratic Party during the events surrounding June 12.(3)

There is also a way in which his political past came
to
haunt him in the period of his political crisis. The allegation that he
influenced the annulment of the 1992 presidential primaries for selfish
reasons is not a recipe for support and sympathy when it came his turn
to face the same music. Abiola is not here to defend himself from these
allegations; nevertheless, these and other allegations and actions of
his
business enemies may have combined to cost him united support of the
political
class against the Abacha junta. Whether these prolonged the crisis and
the pain suffered by innocent Nigerians is not an idle question.

But by far, the worst possible negative consequence
is
the current knee-jerk reaction on the part of many southerners to call
for the decentralization of the Nigerian military. Others call for more
than that. They see the answer in a confederation, or even in a
commonwealth
of 36 independent states. I think this is a bad mistake on the part of
anyone who even vaguely believes in the imperative of one Nigeria. I
believe
as follows: First, what Nigeria needs to stay as one strong and
respected
regional power is a strong unadulterated federalism. Second, the
prerequisite
for achieving this must be the extension of a sense of belonging to
Nigerians
of all ethnic groups. Third, the best place to start is with the
nationalization
of the military. If we did this, we would have left Nigeria as one
strong
and internationally respected nation, the way in which Moshood Abiola,
that most courageous of all Nigerian integrationists, longed and worked
to see it.

1. Ebere Onwudiwe is Vice President of the
Association
of Nigerian Scholars for Dialogue. A Professor of Political Science at
Central State University, Wilberforce, Ohio, where is he is also the
Director
of the Center for African Studies, Dr. Onwudiwe is the editor of The
International Journal of African Studies, previously Journal of
Human Relations.